How does the accuracy of intracranial volume measurements affect normalized brain volumes? sample size estimates based on 966 subjects from the HUNT MRI cohort

American Journal of Neuroradiology

Volumn 36, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 1450-1456

  Hansen, T I ^a,b   Brezova, V ^a,b   Eikenes, L ^a   Haberg A ^a,b   Vangberg, X T R ^c,d  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH NORWAY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRAIN SIZE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGING SOFTWARE; MALE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MIDDLE AGED; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; SAMPLE SIZE; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BRAIN; ORGAN SIZE; PROCEDURES; REFERENCE VALUE;

AGED; BRAIN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGAN SIZE; REFERENCE VALUES; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84935133231     PISSN: 01956108     EISSN: 1936959X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4299     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Barnes J, Ridgway GR, Bartlett J, et al. Head size, age and gender adjustment in MRI studies: a necessary nuisance? Neuroimage 2010;53:1244-55
2. Davis PJ, Wright EA. A new method for measuring cranial cavity volume and its application to the assessment of cerebral atrophy at autopsy. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 1977;3:341-58
3. Buckner RL, Head D, Parker J, et al. A unified approach for morpho-metric and functional data analysis in young, old, and demented adults using automated atlas-based head size normalization: reliability and validation against manual measurement of total intra-cranial volume. Neuroimage 2004;23:724-38
4. Keihaninejad S, Heckemann RA, Fagiolo G, et al. Arobust methodto estimate the intracranial volume across MRI field strengths (1.5T and 3T). Neuroimage 2010;50:1427-37
5. NordenskjöldR, Malmberg F, Larsson EM, et al. Intracranial volume estimated with commonly used methods could introduce bias in studies including brain volume measurements. Neuroimage 2013; 83:355-60
6. Jack R, Twomey K, Sharbrough FW, et al. Anterior temporal lobes and hippocampal formations: normative volumetric measurements from MRimagesin young adults. Radiology1989;172:549-54
7. Lehmann M, Douiri A, Kim LG, et al. Atrophy patterns in Alzheimer's disease and semantic dementia: a comparison of Free-Surfer and manual volumetric measurements. Neuroimage 2010; 49:2264-74
8. O'Brien LM, Ziegler DA, Deutsch CK, et al. Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: some practical implications in methods. Psychiatry Res 2011;193:113-22
9. Sanfilipo MP, Benedict RHB, Zivadinov R, et al. Correction for in-tracranial volume in analysis of whole brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: the proportion vs. residual method. Neuroimage 2004; 22:1732-43
10. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116-28
11. Whitwell JL, Crum WR, Watt HC, et al. Normalization of cerebral volumes by use of intracranial volume: implications for longitudinal quantitative MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22: 1483-89
12. Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Unified segmentation. Neuroimage 2005; 26:839-51
13. Weiskopf N, Lutti A, Helms G, et al. Unified segmentation based correction of R1 brain maps for RF transmit field inhomogeneities (UNICORT). Neuroimage 2011;54:2116-24
14. Dice LR. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 1945;26:297-302
15. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-28
16. Fischl B, Salat DH, Busa E, et al. Whole brain segmentation: automated labeling of neuroanatomical structures in the human brain. Neuron 2002;33:341-55
17. Fischl B, Salat DH, van der Kouwe AJW, et al. Sequence-independent segmentation of magnetic resonance images. Neuroimage 2004; 23(suppl 1):S69-84
18. Smith RJ. Relative size versus controlling for size: interpretation of ratios in research on sexual dimorphism in the human corpus cal-losum. Current Anthropology 2005;46:249-73
19. Mathalon DH, Sullivan EV, Rawles JM, et al. Correction for head size in brain-imaging measurements. Psychiatry Res 1993;50:121-39
20. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155-59
21. Fein G, Di Sclafani V, Taylor C, et al. Controlling for premorbid brain size in imaging studies: T1-derived cranium scaling factor vs. T2-derived intracranial vault volume. Psychiatry Res 2004;131: 169-76
22. Pengas G, Pereira JM, Williams GB, et al. Comparative reliability of total intracranial volume estimation methods and the influence of atrophy in a longitudinal semantic dementia cohort. J Neuroimag-ing 2009;19:37-46